Discussion
  • Read More
    Rutherford B. Hayes, caretaker presidentBrendan O'Connor
    8/05/16 10:51am

    Oh, fuck this. Are we going to congragulate every conservative republican that endorses Hillary? Are we ok with the apparently rightward movement of the democratic party, given these endorsements? Is the bar for liberalism really becoming that low?

    We can’t become a center-right party.

    Reply
    <
    • Read More
      Sobchak SecurityRutherford B. Hayes, caretaker president
      8/05/16 10:53am

      We can’t become a center-right party.

      Um… It kinda already is. It kinda has been a center-right party for awhile. America’s left has never really been represented by a major party.

      Reply
      <
    • Read More
      Brendan O'ConnorRutherford B. Hayes, caretaker president
      8/05/16 10:54am

      The Democratic party is a center-right party.

      Reply
      <
  • Read More
    butcherbakertoiletrymakerBrendan O'Connor
    8/05/16 10:56am

    So, let’s see: Clinton is obtaining endorsements from Republicans and is getting the high five by a guy who defended torture and also likely was involved with the government’s domestic surveillance program (don’t give me that shit about the CIA only having authority to do this overseas). Remind me again how liberal she really is? Tell me again how electing her will do oh, so much good for the progression of liberal policies? Nope. Never mind. All you Clinton Cultists will do is scream yourselves hoarse about how none of it matters because...well, just because.

    Reply
    <
    • Read More
      Flying Squid (I hate me more than you do.)butcherbakertoiletrymaker
      8/05/16 10:57am

      Yes... just because.

      Reply
      <
    • Read More
      lololollololbutcherbakertoiletrymaker
      8/05/16 11:06am

      Whoa buddy... You don’t want to say anything bad about The Chosen One around here... People might think you are a Republican!

      Reply
      <
  • Read More
    gilbertkittensBrendan O'Connor
    8/05/16 11:07am

    Yes, Clinton is the establishment. The establishment gets a lot of flack these days, mainly because it’s unfailing embrace of capitalism, at least in a marketing sense, ties it directly to the 30 year disconnect between productivity and wages, and the fact that American Hegemony requires some amount of military adventuring. But just, as a thought experiment, really look at the core of the word: Stability.

    We tend to forget, in our porn-dulled minds, that there are literally thousands of Russian nuclear weapons pointed at us and we have thousands of nuclear weapons pointed back at them - all on hair trigger alert, fueled and ready to go, at a moments notice. The MAD doctrine requires that the president be able to launch these weapons within 30 minutes of deciding he/she wants to. There is only one check on that power: the secretary of defense, appointed, of course by the president that he/she is supposed to be checking. In light of the fact that the end of the world is, in point of fact, not an existential threat but a very real, physical threat and not really all that far away, temporally, is stability actually a bad thing at all - even if it comes with a corrupt Oligarchy sitting on top of it?

    http://www.vox.com/2016/8/3/12367…

    Reply
    <
    • Read More
      bostonbakedburnergilbertkittens
      8/05/16 11:13am

      I refuse to vote for a presidential candidate out of fear.

      Reply
      <
    • Read More
      gilbertkittensbostonbakedburner
      8/05/16 11:14am

      What logical reason could you possibly have to not fear nuclear annihilation?

      Reply
      <
  • Read More
    keverdeneBrendan O'Connor
    8/05/16 10:58am

    Or maybe, since he’s a person who knows a shit-ton more than Gawker does about international relations and recognizes the threat that Trump poses, and maybe because he doesn’t actually work for the Clintons (just for a friend of theirs) but nonetheless understands the importance of the work that Hillary did as Sec of State and her general ability to not ass-fuck us into World War III, maybe he’s decided to take a risk, set aside protocol, and speak out as against the potential undoing of our national security?

    But I’m sure you’re probably right. He’s probably just being a dick. These experts, with their stupid “experience” and decades of respectable, measured public service are really annoying when they, as now private citizens, choose an objectively qualified candidate over a flaming shit pile who’s potentially being bribed by a foreign power.

    God, Morrell is totally the problem here.

    /s

    Reply
    <
    • Read More
      SocialJusticeWarriorPrincesskeverdene
      8/05/16 11:26am

      I wish I could give you more stars.

      “OMG Republicans are endorsing Clinton! It must be because she’s a secret Republican even though her voting record and 40 years of Republicans trying to destroy her says otherwise. It’s definitely not because Trump is a threat to everything in the developed world and some Republicans are smart enough to recognize what a disaster he is!”

      The level of intellectual thinking by so-called leftist progressives.

      Reply
      <
    • Read More
      TheDoomkittenkeverdene
      8/05/16 11:32am

      You don’t get to direct the CIA and not be a terrible human being.

      Reply
      <
  • Read More
    IAMBlastedBiggsLostBurnerBrendan O'Connor
    8/05/16 10:54am

    Even if he isn't the most objective of analysts, he isn't wrong about Donnie being a real threat to our security. The vision of him in the Oval Office, trying to impress a delegation of Hooters' waitresses by launching a few tactical nukes, can't be that implausible.

    Reply
    <
    • Read More
      PhiBetaCrappaIAMBlastedBiggsLostBurner
      8/05/16 11:00am

      Exactly. Gawker can beat its Bernie-bro chest all it wants about a conflict of interest, but it doesn’t make this guy wrong about Trump.

      Reply
      <
    • Read More
      lololollololIAMBlastedBiggsLostBurner
      8/05/16 11:10am

      Do you think it is more likely that Trump uses a nuke, or that Clinton invades a few countries?

      Reply
      <
  • Read More
    Promnight Dumpster Baby FireBrendan O'Connor
    8/05/16 10:50am

    The Clintons have a great many fervent admirers, among those whose comfortable livelihood depends on the Clintons' continuing patronage. That there slush fund/Foundation for Graft and Influence Peddling comes in handy, when it comes to distributing the money. Its funny, all the people who come forward to talk about how funny and normal and personable Hillary is in real life and how its so bizarre that she seems rehearsed, awkward, mechanical and fake in public, all of them receive paychecks from her. Its like Rodney's old joke about his mom tying a bone around his neck to get the dog to play with him.

    Reply
    <
    • Read More
      frostynipsPromnight Dumpster Baby Fire
      8/05/16 10:54am

      Not to mention all of the questionable countries (Saudi Arabia, Oman, Qatar, Kuwait, Algeria, Nigeria) and people they receive LARGE sums of money from.

      If anyone but the Clintons were receiving such large donations from such questionable places, their campaign, and likely their careers would have ended a LONG time ago.

      But the money won’t and doesn’t influence them, does? Not at all!

      http://www.wsj.com/articles/hilla…

      “Here’s what we do know: Mr. Fernando, before his plum appointment, had given between $100,000 and $250,000 to the William J. Clinton Foundation. He had been a top bundler for Mrs. Clinton in her 2008 presidential run, and later a major Obama fundraiser. He gave tens of thousands more to a political group that helped Hillary pay off her 2008 campaign debt by renting her email list.

      The 2011 emails reveal that the State Department knew it had a problem on its hands. “We must protect the Secretary’s and Under Secretary’s name,” the press aide warned. Ms. Mills, the messages say, asked staff to “stall” the news organization. Damage control came in the form of Mr. Fernando’s quick resignation, on grounds of “additional time needed to devote to his business.”

      Reply
      <
    • Read More
      lololollololPromnight Dumpster Baby Fire
      8/05/16 10:55am

      Shush. That’s not true. But even if it is, shut up! Because Trump!

      Reply
      <
  • Read More
    stuckinthegreyswithyouBrendan O'Connor
    8/05/16 10:50am

    Like Bernie said, Trump must not only lose, he must lose big. A message must be sent to Trump’s supporters that we’re not going back to the 1950s. We’re going to move ahead as a far more diverse country.

    Trump’s implosion makes all of this very possible.

    Reply
    <
    • Read More
      Why do I have to explain this to you?stuckinthegreyswithyou
      8/05/16 10:55am

      You’ll have to make 75% of america have an increase in real monthly income before the forces that made trump go away.

      An increase in real monthly income for 75% of america hasn’t happened in about 30 years or so.

      You really think the labor market is fine when unemployment is low because you have college educated people and skilled laborers working in retail making minimum wage, with constantly rising costs for food, transportation, and healthcare?

      The majority of Americans cannot afford a 400 dollar medical bill. The only reason it’s not more apparent, is our love of giving credit to people who cannot pay it back.

      If you keep ignoring this enormous number of people who are not being helped by the tech bubble economy, they will continue to be a problem.

      Reply
      <
    • Read More
      stuckinthegreyswithyouWhy do I have to explain this to you?
      8/05/16 11:03am

      I understand the anger that is driving Trump’s supporters. However, like President Obama said, their anger is misdirected. The well paying, blue collar jobs that only required high school diplomas are gone forever. There’s no amount of belly aching and whining that’s going to bring these jobs back.

      The outcome of this is probably going to be a civil war between Trump supporters and conservatives that will continue to divide the Republican Party.

      Reply
      <
  • Read More
    ReburnsABurningReturnsBrendan O'Connor
    8/05/16 11:13am

    but if Putin’s support for Trump constitutes some kind of clandestine meddling, what does that make Morell’s support for Clinton?

    I’ll take false equivalences for $500 Alex.

    The guy’s a long time veteran of American intelligence operations, he’s not a former spook who now controls Russia.

    While he’s clearly a fairly standard issue political partisan, he also has the credentials to say this. If you’re going to attack what he’s saying, then attack the factual basis.

    Reply
    <
    • Read More
      flamingolingoReburnsABurningReturns
      8/05/16 1:02pm

      It’s bizarre that Gawker is suggesting a former CIA dude is the same thing as a Russian despot who actively wants to undermine U.S. interests. For one thing, the former CIA dude is AMERICAN.

      Christ. This article is terrible and reinforces the fact that Gawker’s political coverage should stick to analyzing Donald Trump’s hair. At least that piece was well-researched and -supported.

      Reply
      <
    • Read More
      j4x_flamingolingo
      8/05/16 1:12pm

      They (media) is panicking. With the poll numbers showing Clinton pulling ahead, the danger of Trump dropping out rises.

      If that happens, we stop page-clickin.

      I

      Reply
      <
  • Read More
    smellslikeassBrendan O'Connor
    8/05/16 11:07am

    SO correct me if I am wrong,

    The Republican nominee makes statements that are universally considered to go against all of our current NATO treaties regarding Russia. As well as consistently praising the Despot running the country, and inviting him to hack govt servers

    A former CIA Director who worked for the CIA for 30 Years points this out and gives his opinion regarding the dangers of these acts (as well as numerous others with foreign policy experience did), but he can’t be taken completely seriously because he took a consulting job with an ally of the Democratic nominee?

    What exactly has he said any differently than the multitude of others that have come out against what Trump has said and done regarding Putin and Russia?
    Does this mean anyone with any kind of degree of separation ties to a candidate (or any aspect of life interaction) is invalid despite their expertise, even if what they say is bolstered by quite a few other experts?

    Reply
    <
    • Read More
      Jelpermansmellslikeass
      8/05/16 11:12am

      No, he shouldn’t be taken seriously because he’s a liar and a torture enthusiast:

      http://www.feinstein.senate.gov/public/index.c…

      http://www.cbsnews.com/news/cia-inter…

      Reply
      <
    • Read More
      smellslikeassJelperman
      8/05/16 11:40am

      Without even getting into the grey area surrounding your claim of lying, and the fact that the writer put that in to somehow bolster a weak opinion, how are those mutually exclusive to what he stated here? What do those aspects have to do with what he saying about Russia and Trump?

      Reply
      <
  • Read More
    Sobchak SecurityBrendan O'Connor
    8/05/16 10:48am

    I don’t love the guy, but his book; “The Great War of Our Time: The CIA’s Fight Against Terrorism—From al Qa’ida to ISIS” is really good.

    Reply
    <
    • Read More
      HighlySelassieSobchak Security
      8/05/16 10:52am

      I liked Cujo and The Shining.

      Reply
      <
    • Read More
      Sobchak SecurityHighlySelassie
      8/05/16 10:54am

      Personally I’m more of an “Everybody Poops” kinda guy, but sometimes you gotta change things up.

      Reply
      <